Honest question, what is your deal with GA and the focus on linguistics?

You will have anthropological and linguistic assumptions one way or another. You can come by them haphazardly or reflectively. Haphazardly means just trying out whatever seems convincing to whomever you want to convince right now. Reflectively means you want to understand why you have the categories you have. This involves working through various paradoxes. So, the categories in which we think are social and historical products. Who could deny it?--we don't think the same way the ancient Egyptians did. But "society" and "history" are also products of the way people think. Both human thinking and human society came into being at a certain time--they haven't always existed. They seem to presuppose each other--so, how could they both have come into being together? How is it that we have language--that is, how is it that we can use words like "think" and more or less agree about how to do so? We could explain what "thinking" is in other words, but how is it that we agree on what *those* words mean? How, without having words, could humans have come to agree upon the use of words? The originary hypothesis is that this was only possible due to an *event*, not gradually (what would be a "part" of a meaning, to be put together with other "parts"?). So, we model an event, minimizing the presuppositions as much as possible--nothing more, really, than human beings as mimetic, with imitation implying rivalry. Then we can better know how we're using words like "society," "history," "thinking," "language" and so on. The assumption is that there are significant long-term costs in not pursuing such questions--you get stuck in permanent haphazardness.

---

Is everyone equally reflective?